Or possibly your DV was worded such that it could be interpreted as a direct dispute under FCRA 623(a)(8) of the accuracy of their reporting.
It is permissible, under the direct dispute rules (16 CFR 660.4(f)) to request additional information if deemed necessary to investigate a dispute.
However, requesting debt validation under the FDCPA does not require the consumer to document an actual error.
If their response included a statement that they have obtained verification from the OC of the debt, it would most likely comprise adequate verification.
If it only provided the name of the asserted OC, that would not be a statement that they have investigated and obtained verification.
If you consider their letter to not be adequate verofication of the debt, then it is not, in and or itself, a violation of anything. It is simply a lack of validation of the debt, which would mean from your perspective that they remain under a cease collection bar, and not that they have violated the FDCPA by not providing adequate validation of by requesting addtional info.
Was it clear that your letter was only a requet for debt validation, and not a direct dispute?
If so, you could choose to respond by informing them that your prior letter was not a direct dispute, and you they have no basis to require any additional documentation related to the asserted debt. Remind them that they remain under a cease collection bar, and continue to wait for validation.......
